Crucifixion

[frankq]

Could someone guide me to a thread about crucifixion, the grim anatomical details? I can't seem to find what I want.

[Primus Pilus]

Could someone guide me to a thread about crucifixion, the grim anatomical details? I can't seem to find what I want.

 

I don't think its been discussed (at least not in the grim details you are looking for)

[frankq]

Could someone guide me to a thread about crucifixion, the grim anatomical details? I can't seem to find what I want.

 

I don't think its been discussed (at least not in the grim details you are looking for)

 

OK. Then I feel relieved since I did a search.

 

What was the name of the foot-bar used that the victim stood on? And which permitted him to stand, get blood circulating in his upper limbs, and which naturally extended his drawn out agony.

 

Wasn't death basically a form of pulmonary and cardiac overload? Or was it plain asphyxiation?

Edited February 16, 2006 by frankq

[Pertinax]

asphyxia yes, but with dire pain from penetrating the plantar ligaments.

 

 

http://www.joezias.com/CrucifixionAntiquity.html try this ,grizzly but informative

Edited February 17, 2006 by Viggen

[M. Porcius Cato]

The asphyxiation hypothesis was debunked by experiments, I think. Probably shock from injuries was the most common cause of death according to the experimenters who debunked the asphyxiation story.

 

Here's the money quote on asphyxiation:

 

The complicated and much debated issue regarding how the individual expired on the cross has generated widespread debate over the years. While many researchers have believed that death occurred as the result of a ruptured heart (Stroud 1874, Whitaker 1935, Wedessow 1978) due to the story in John 19:34 of the water and blood flowing out of the wound, pathologists such as Zugibe (1984) have ruled this out as medically untenable. Other scholars (LeBec 1925, Hynek 1936, Barbet 1937, Modder 1949) have regarded asphyxiation as being the cause of death, however the latest research findings have shown the issue to be more complicated depending upon the manner in which the victim was affixed to the cross. A series of experiments carried out by an American medical examiner and pathologist on college students who volunteered to be tied to crosses showed that if the students were suspended from crosses with their arms outstretched in the traditional manner depicted in Christian art, they experienced no problems breathing (Zugibe 1984). Thus the often quoted theory that death on the cross is the result of asphyxiation is no longer tenable if the arms are outstretched. According to the physiological response of the students, which was closely monitored by Zugibe, death in this manner is the result of the victim going into hypovolemic shock[5] which can be in a manner of hours, or days depending on the manner in which the victim is affixed to the cross. If the victim is crucified with a small seat, a sedile, affixed to the upright for minimum support in the region of the buttocks, death can be prolonged for hours and days. In fact, Josephus reports that three friends of his were being crucified in Thecoa by the Romans who, upon intervention by Josephus to Titus were removed from the crosses and with medical care one survived. (Life 76)

[Pertinax]

Your right MPC, and I even recognise that passage as well!

[Ludovicus]

When did Rome stop the practice of crucifixion? Is there any documentary evidence of it being outlawed?

[frankq]

Hypovolemic shock

 

Definition:

Hypovolemic shock is a particular form of shock in which the heart is unable to supply enough blood to the body. It is caused by blood loss or inadequate blood volume.

 

 

 

Sounds right.

[Ursus]

Whatever actually caused death, it was an excrutiating and very public death, which was the point.

 

Now I've read it was reserved for slaves and traitors, the lowest of the low. But I've read conflicting things. Pirates were wont to be crucified, for instance. Any clarification on exactly who got the treatment and under what circumstances?

 

Also, I've read the practice actually originated in Persia or other Mid-east countries, which Rome merely adopted (possibly through Punic intermediaries)? Any clarification on that?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Also, I've read the practice actually originated in Persia or other Mid-east countries, which Rome merely adopted (possibly through Punic intermediaries)? Any clarification on that?

 

Interesting idea. Certainly the Carthaginians practiced crucifixion. What's the earliest evidence of Roman crucifixion?

[Primus Pilus]

I was trying to find the earliest recorded mentions of 'Roman' crucifixion mainly via Livy and stumbled across this excellent page with detailed source information...

 

Crucifixion

[Germanicus]

Everything I've looked at indicates the Romans learnt the practice from Carthage like this below from:here

 

 

 

Crucifixion is first attested among the Persians (cf. Herodotus, Hist. i.128.2; iii.132.2, 159.1), perhaps derived from the Assyrian impalement. It was later employed by the Greeks, especially Alexander the Great, and by the Carthaginians, from whom the Romans adapted the practice as a punishment for slaves and non-citizens, and occasionaly for citizens guilty of treason. Although in the Old Testament the corpses of blasphemers or idolaters punished by stoning might be handged "on a tree" as further humiliation (Deut. 21:23), actual crucifixion was not introduced in Palestine until Hellenistic times. The Seleucid Antiochus IV Epiphanes crucified those Jews who would not accept hellenization (Josephus Ant. xii.240-41; cf 1 Macc. 1:44-50)

 

And this from http://ancienthistory.about.com is interesting:-

 

Following his defeat at the naval battle of Mylae in 260 B.C., Hannibal, son of Gisgo, and the remnants of his fleet were blockaded in a Sardinian port, whereupon Hannibal "was at once arrested by the surviving Carthaginians and crucified" (Polybius, Book I, chapter 24). Later, in 241 B.C., following the great Roman naval victory at the Aegates Islands which effectively ended the war, the defeated admiral Hanno returned to Carthage and was crucified (Dio Cassius, Book 12).

 

On land, the Roman commander M. Atilius Regulus was defeated and captured in a battle on the Bagradas Plains in 255 B.C. A few years later, according to tradition, he was paroled to Rome to encourage the Senate to accept peace terms, or at least agree to an exchange of POWs, and gave his word to return to Carthage with the response. On arrival in Rome, Regulus recommended that the Romans reject the proposed exchange, then, rather than break his oath, he returned voluntarily to Carthage, where he was allegedly tortured to death. In the usual version of Regulus' demise (recorded in the fragments of Dio Cassius' Book 11), the Carthaginians cut off his eyelids then kept him facing the sun in a barrel full of spikes until he died, but other sources apparently imply other means of execution, including crucifixion.

[frankq]

I was trying to find the earliest recorded mentions of 'Roman' crucifixion mainly via Livy and stumbled across this excellent page with detailed source information...

 

Crucifixion

 

Excellent link!

[frankq]

I was trying to find the earliest recorded mentions of 'Roman' crucifixion mainly via Livy and stumbled across this excellent page with detailed source information...

 

Crucifixion

 

Excellent link!

 

Here, by the way, is another good link:

 

http://www.intermirifica.org/lent/passion7.htm

 

Drops you in the middle, you can go back and forth. Well done description, though beware, I think it's a Christian website.

[Ursus]

If one wants to trust wikipedia (yeah, I know ....) they do have an interesting article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion